14
In April 2008, Brian was successful in his application for the post of
Group Therapist at Off Centre and he was delighted, since he saw his
long-term future as a group therapist and author on his therapeutic encounters
with clients and his research into the issue of child sexual abuse and its
lifelong impact on survivors.
His BT internet connection at home was ceased. His laptop had finally
‘died’ altogether. He had taken it to a computer repair shop in Welling High
Street where he was told that it would cost more to repair than a new laptop.
Brian’s relationship with petite colleague Maya Walker was slowly progressing and on Sunday 5 May
2008, she visited Days Lane. They watched a film on television, both sitting on
his bed.
Elizabeth McIntyre – the girl in the upstairs bedroom at 62 Days
Lane – started to put on another of her ‘shows’, undressing and running her
hands through her hair and over her breasts and hips.
Brian mentioned this strange occurrence to his lover and asked her to
watch the dancing and stripping off and come to some conclusions about it from
(a) her female perspective and (b) wearing her counsellor’s hat.
Maya Walker watched and saw McIntyre undressing and
dancing rhythmically in her bedroom. She put forward the view that the young
woman was a narcissist and that she knew she was being watched. Walker also
suggested that McIntyre might be the victim of sexual abuse since she was so
desperate to be seen and admired by men.
Brian asked her whether she thought McIntyre was dancing for the young
men next door or for him. Looking at the angles, and the odd pattern with the
curtains, Walker suggested that the dancing and the stripping must have been
for him. Brian asked her to make a note of their conversation and the dancing
in her diary.
On 7 May 2008, Brian was in agony – it felt that he had broken his big
toe on his right foot. Off Centre was having a ‘Clearout Day’ in which all of the offices and staff room and
kitchen were cleared out of accumulated junk. Despite the agony, and wearing
sandals because he could not bear to wear socks and shoes, he attended work.
It is important to note that on the evening of 7 May 2008, Brian was
in no mood for anything other than to lie down and take the weight off his
painful foot. His big toe had swollen considerably and was extremely sore and
red.
On Thursday 8 May 2008, he went to Accident and Emergency at Queen
Mary’s Hospital in Sidcup where a diagnosis of gout was made by a nurse and added to his medical
records at the Barnard Medical Centre.
From the hospital, he caught a bus to Chislehurst, to meet with his
friend Geoffrey Bacon.
With the pain-killers that he had been prescribed bringing some
immediate relief, he alighted the bus just yards from his friend’s house.
Arriving at his friend’s house, the two men exchanged some banter
about Brian having ‘an old man’s disease’.
Geoffrey Bacon is a self-employed builder who has been
cleared by the Home Office to work in royal and governmental buildings,
including police stations. His 80-year-old father, Roy, had also been a builder
who had similarly been cleared by the Home Office. These were men of great
integrity. Despite his advanced years, Roy Bacon was a sharp, intelligent man who had fought
for his country and knew the ways of the world.
Geoffrey had a computer in his bedroom which he used for his building
work. He used it to type out quotations, maintain records of customer accounts,
complete his tax forms and run his business from it.
On Thursday 8 May 2008, Brian briefly went on to his MSN account and his Faceparty account to check emails and messages. There
was nothing of note.
The two men continued to discuss the refurbishment of Brian’s house
and how to overcome certain problems and Brian left around 10pm. He was working
at Off Centre the following day in his role as Group
Therapist.
On Thursday 15 May 2008, Brian again visited Geoffrey and Roy Bacon’s house and again he went on
to his Faceparty and MSN accounts.
Once he had entered his Faceparty account, almost immediately he received an
applet from the person purporting to be the 14-year-old girl.
‘She’ had not been in contact for some two months. ‘She’ tried to
arrange a meeting, but Brian was having none of it and he typed: “…You are a
fake! Fuck off!...”
As he typed out and spoke aloud those words and then immediately left Faceparty, Geoffrey Bacon, sitting on his bed next to
the computer, asked him, “What was all that about, Bri?”
Brian told his friend that he
had encountered this person claiming to be a 14-year-old girl. He explained
that he initially believed that it was a paedophile attempting to be seen as a
teenager. He told Geoffrey that the Faceparty website had been a very good website but over
the past 6-9 months, it had rapidly deteriorated. He told his friend that he
believed that the police were using it as a website to peddle child pornography
and to entrap innocent people.
He told his friend that he seen chatrooms with such names as TeenSluts4OldMen and Cash4Teens.
Brian then told his friend of some 18 years that he had decided never
to go on to Faceparty or MSN again.
It is important to note that the ‘girl’ had once again contacted Brian
and not the other way around. It is also important to note that he shared his
concerns about the Faceparty website with his trusted friend, Geoffrey
Bacon. And we must also note that
the message from the ‘girl’ was stored on Geoffrey Bacon’s computer.
15
On 19 May, Brian celebrated his grand-son’s birthday – Joe was now 2 years old. Unfortunately, as in most
families, there was an undercurrent of tension.
A few years before, after his mother’s death in Oregon, USA, in 1997, Brian made his
daughter, Sorrel, aware that she had been
named in his mother’s will as being a beneficiary of some £12,000.
His mother had left the money with conditions. Sorrel could not access the money until her 40th
birthday. Brian had no involvement in this decision – it had been his mother’s
and hers alone.
His mother had also left the same sum of money and the same conditions
to the sons of her dead son, Robert, who had died as the result of an accident
on board the St. Kitts trawler.
Brian was made an Executor and a beneficiary of his mother’s will. He
took the role of Executor of his mother’s will seriously. Now dead, she would
be unable to ensure that her wishes were met, and thus relied on Brian to
execute her will in accordance with her wishes.
Once he had informed his daughter of the existence of the will, the
inheritance and the conditions, Sorrel Pead was unhappy and blamed her father for
having imposed the fortieth birthday condition. Brian tried to explain that he
had had no input into that decision, but his daughter would not listen. She
badgered him to release the money, but Brian explained that he wanted to
administer the will according to his mother’s express wishes.
After a period of three or four years, and with two daughters, Sorrel and her partner, Paul Birch, visited Brian’s house in
Sidcup and asked for the money so that they could ‘buy a house’ – at the time they
were living in a flat in Shooter’s Hill, southeast London.
Brian’s partner was Ann Armin, a former classroom assistant
at Gravel Hill Primary School where they met, and Ann was present during
this tense meeting.
It was put to Brian that if he did not ‘hand over the money’ then he would
not see his grand-daughters again.
Neither he nor Ann could believe what they had just heard. Brian – as
is his custom – asked them to repeat their demands. They did. He had not heard
them incorrectly.
In the event, despite being a strong person, he gave in to their
demands because he did not want to lose his grand-children from his life. He
adored them and they adored him.
He worked hard at establishing positive relationships with his
grand-daughters and helped to educate and nurture them. He repeated this
pattern when Joe was born.
But on each occasion that one of his grand-children had a birthday,
Brian would always be invited to attend after everyone else had gone home. He
was left with curled sandwiches and dry pieces of cake. It was becoming
apparent to him that his daughter and son-in-law saw him as an intruder into
their family.
After the tense meeting in which Brian (and Ann) felt that he had been
emotionally blackmailed, he sent a letter to his daughter, Sorrel,
and to nephews Jason Pead (aka Jay Roberts) and Shaun Pead in which he informed them that he had set
aside a Sunday and invited them over to inspect his mother’s will, read it and
note the conditions she had set.
In 2001, their ages were 31 (Jay), 29 (Shaun) and 27 (Sorrel).
None of them responded to the letter and none of them visited to inspect the
will. It was not to be the first time that they would make judgments without
examining the evidence.
16
At the time of Brian’s unlawful suspension from Lambeth on 8 December
2006, he was working as a Volunteer Counsellor at the Community Drug Service,
South London in Wallington, Surrey. The service was managed
by Franco Toma and Michael Bird was the clinical supervisor in charge of
overseeing the work of counsellors and volunteer counsellors.
During tea-breaks, or in between clients, Brian told Michael Bird of his troubles at Lambeth, which were, he
told his supervisor, based on the fact that he had been forced to dismiss a
female teacher for grooming female pupils, racism and bullying.
Michael Bird listened with great interest, but little did
he know that he was to play a major part in the story in the coming months and
years.
17
On Tuesday 20 May 2008, just as he was preparing to leave for his
journey to Hackney, Brian answered a knock at the door around 7.30am. He
thought it might be the postman delivering a parcel, but when he opened the
door he saw three people – two male police officers and a female officer.
They stated that they wished to ask Brian some questions. Having
nothing to hide, he allowed them entry into his house where he was promptly
arrested. He had been tricked into this situation.
“Why are you arresting me?” he asked.
“You’re being arrested for indecent exposure and voyeurism.”
He was unnecessarily handcuffed in his own home.
“Why are you handcuffing me?”
“Because you might cause us danger.”
“I’m not going to hurt anybody … please take the cuffs off.”
“No.”
At this point, one officer, whom Brian later discovered was known as
Peter Thompson went upstairs to Brian’s bedroom and started
taking photographs from his front bedroom window.
“Have you got a search warrant?” asked the indignant Brian.
“I don’t need one. We’ve arrested you. That’s sufficient,” lied
Thompson.
“On what authority are you searching my bedroom?”
“We believe you have been using binoculars and other similar equipment
to spy on the girls who live opposite at 62 Days Lane,” continued Thompson.
“Well, let me correct you. The girls are not girls. They are all at
least in their twenties. Secondly, their house is not opposite. It’s at an
acute angle. I have no spying equipment and I am not guilty of any crime. Where
is the search warrant? Have you finished searching my bedroom?”
“Yes.”
“So, where are you from and which division?” asked Pead.
“We’re from Bexley Police. The Sapphire Unit.”
As a counsellor and former teacher, Brian knew that each police
station had a Sapphire Unit attached to it and that its purpose was to
investigate sexual offences.
“The Sapphire Unit?” inquired Brian. “Let me
tell you that that’s bollocks because I haven’t committed any sexual offences.”
“Well, you’re coming to the station to be interviewed.”
The unmarked police car took a convoluted route to Bexleyheath Police
Station in Arnsberg Way and Brian was asked if he required the
assistance of a solicitor.
“I’ve done nothing wrong, so it’s ok.”
It should be noted that were this to occur today, with his increased
knowledge of police procedures, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 2008 and the
judiciary in general, he would not have admitted the police into his house and he
would demand that they produce an Arrest Warrant and a Search Warrant. But, at
the age of 53, he had never been in trouble with the police and was thus not
aware of his Rights.
He had, however, attended the Liverpool v Nottingham Forest FA Cup tie
on 15 April 1989 as a Liverpool fan and he had seen how – for almost 20 years –
the police had been involved in a high level cover-up of what was so obviously
malpractice. But this was 2008 and THE REAL TRUTH had not yet been published
about the Hillsborough Disaster.
He was held initially in a police cell – this is the first part of
their ‘scare tactics’. Brian Pead is not a man to be intimidated. He put his
feet up and rested, awaiting the farce that would inevitably follow.
The first interview commenced at 09:50 and was conducted by PC Jane
Sargeant (1782RY) and Detective Constable Saib. The PC led the interview.
Brian was reminded that the reason for his arrest at 07:30 had been
for indecent exposure and voyeurism on dates ranging from October 2007 until 18
May 2008 and indecent exposure on 7 May 2008. He was told that an allegation
had been made by a “young female neighbour and two other witnesses who live
opposite you at number 62 Days Lane”.
Brian remained calm, believing the whole incident to be a complete
farce. He listened intently to every word uttered by Sargeant and Saib.
He noted their use of the word ‘young’ in relation to the neighbour,
aged around 22. He made a mental note that this word had been used extensively
in his unlawful suspension and dismissal at Lambeth. It already seemed to him
that this was an extension of the troubles he encountered at Lambeth, and it
was not lost on him that this episode was less than three weeks after he had
put in his letter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (which had
still not been responded to).
Brian asked for a pencil and some paper. He asked PC Sargeant to recap the allegations against him.
PC Sargeant: Yes, October 2007 through to
18 May 2008.
Brian Pead: Okay and then you said there was something on 7 May?
PC Sargeant: That’s right, that was the
indecent exposure. From October to 18th May, that’s what we class as the
voyeurism, where the girl says that you’ve been watching her while she’s been
in her bedroom doing private acts in her bedroom. So that’s why you were
arrested this morning and you’ve been brought here today so you can tell us
your side of the story. So would you like to tell me what you know about what
I’ve told you today?
Brian Pead: Well I’m fuming and I’m furious and I think this is
bollocks, if you’ll excuse my language. I somehow feel set-up in this and I’m
really puzzled by this to be honest because eight months allegedly this has
been going on, allegedly, and so consequently that’s an awful long time it
seems to me before anyone phoned and made any kind of complaint anyway. So
that’s bizarre to me. I have seen the girls from that house in the local
stores, the local Co-op round the corner, I see them in the street, nobody has
said anything to me before now, which to me seems odd, but never mind that’s
their story. There’s clearly some strange dynamic going on here, then, a
strange dynamic and I’ve been sitting for the last hour or two trying to work
out what that can be because it seems bizarre, really bizarre. Okay I’ll draw
you a diagram to explain this, sometimes a picture is a thousand words.
MR PEAD WAS SUPPLIED WITH A SEPARATE PIECE OF PAPER AND HE DREW TWO
WINDOWS, THE VIEW FROM HIS HOUSE.
Brian Pead: I don’t know who’s put in the complaint, you say a young
lady from that house has put in a complaint …
PC Sargeant: Well three of them yes, one
of the young girls made the complaint first, the allegation, because she feels
that you have been watching her, and then two of the girls saw the indecent
exposure on 7 May, two of the other girls saw the indecent exposure.
[Authors’ note: notice the
police officer’s use of the term ‘young girls’ – these were females aged
between 20 and 25. Note how it is a phrase used by those at Lambeth.]
Brian Pead: They say.
PC Sargeant: Yes.
Brian Pead:
And they’ve got pictures of this?
PC Sargeant: Only their word, they didn’t
take pictures.
Brian Pead: They have mobile phones, web cams and all of that and they
didn’t take pictures?
PC Sargeant: Well, no, because they were
very shocked by what they saw and when, as they said a person who they don’t
really know is stood across from them masturbating naked in the window, their
first thought isn’t to take a picture it’s to scream, to close the curtains,
see what’s happening and then try ...You tell me what’s happened…
Brian Pead: Okay if that was a real scenario I could understand that
yeah, if the young ladies had felt threatened or anything like that I could
understand that.
MR PEAD REFERRED BACK TO THE TWO WINDOWS (HE DESCRIBES AS LEFT AND
RIGHT). HE SAID HE DOESN’T KNOW THE YOUNG LADY CONCERNED, ONLY THAT SHE IS
BLONDE...”
Notice that the typist (called Lynn) spells the word ‘blonde’
correctly unlike the person who was purporting to be a 14-year-old female on
Faceparty and MSN.
Returning to the conversation in the police station, Brian Pead has
already called the constable on the fact that the females had never taken a
single photograph of him over an alleged nine-month period from September 2007
through to May 2008. PC Sargeant tried to avoid his pertinent question by
saying that they were ‘afraid’ and ‘screaming’. This is nonsense – the females
were surely not afraid or screaming over a period of nine months. Besides, who
would wait nine months before taking action, had these incidents really taken
place?
Brian felt that this reminded him of Lambeth and the masturbation in
the theatre – apparently nobody had bothered to report this alleged incident
until after he had had good cause to dismiss the person calling herself Maryn
Murray for grooming young females, for bullying and
for racism.
Lambeth had failed to respond appropriately or even to respond at all.
His appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal also did
not receive a response, despite three attempts and now – when he had forced
their hand to provide him with an Appeal date - he had been arrested on a
trumped-up charge of indecent exposure and voyeurism. It was far too much of a
coincidence he, and friends, believed.
Brian went on to draw a picture of the windows at 62 Days Lane as seen
from his house, and he patiently explained that he felt that he had been the
subject of surveillance from that house.
He explained that the female was not merely ‘changing her clothes’ in
the bedroom but actually putting on a deliberate show. He told the police that
his initial reaction was that she was performing for the 20-something year old
men in the house next to his, at number 87.
PC Sargeant then attempted to manipulate the version of
events that Brian was relaying by claiming “…So you’ve been watching her from your
window…” to which Brian corrected, “…No, I said I had seen her from time to time which is a very different thing…”
Being something of a linguist, Brian usually always feels the need to
correct language where misunderstandings can occur. He did not want to be
charged with voyeurism, or be charged at all. He knows that the legal system is
built on a foundation of legalese – a ‘restricted code’ - that only a few people are
aware of because knowledge is power and those in power do not want those not in
power to learn the ‘code’.
The conversation between Brian
Pead and PC Sargeant moved on to a discussion of the note that he
had put through the door of 62 Days Lane in order to draw the occupant’s attention to the fact that
she could be seen (had she not been aware, which is unlikely).
But PC Sargeant, instead of seeing the good
intentions of Brian’s note, chose to try to twist the note into some form of
perverted communication.
PC Sargeant: Are you trying to say that
you weren’t attracted to her great looking and fantastic body?
Brian Pead: Not in that sense, no.
PC Sargeant: Did you find her a turn-on?
Brian Pead: Not in that sense, no.
It was clear to Brian that the police officer had absolutely no
intention of listening to his account – she was, of course, looking for a
conviction to add to the ‘success rate’ of the Bexley Sapphire Unit.
Although he had been careful to explain that he first thought that
Elizabeth McIntyre had been performing shows for the three sons
of Glen Meeking,
his neighbour at 87 Days Lane, PC Sargeant attempted to claim that Brian had said that
McIntyre was putting on shows for his benefit; “…So what made you think that a
girl in her twenties … sorry if this sounds rude, would be interested in a man
who’s fifty-three/ fifty-four?..”
Brian had never said that he thought that Elizabeth McIntyre was interested in him. He had said that he
felt that she – or others – had, in fact, been watching him, or keeping him
under surveillance.
PC Sargeant claimed that Elizabeth McIntyre had been ‘distraught’ at receiving the note
from Brian Pead, that she had felt ‘dirty’. So dirty in fact that once she had
received it, she increased the number of shows and continued to display herself
at an open window for several months.
In his research and training, he had learnt that the most common
response to a woman feeling thus ‘violated’ would be to withdraw, but McIntyre
did not. She increased the frequency of her shows and – more significantly –
she kept the note that Brian Pead had sent in her best interests.
It was incomprehensible to him (and his friends) that a woman who felt
so violated would keep hold of a note that made her feel traumatised. It
occurred to Brian and friends that she had kept that note for a reason. This
was sounding more and more like a set-up.
The interview took a farcical and almost surreal tone when PC Sargeant turned to McIntyre’s claims that on 5 May 2008
she had witnessed Brian standing at his bedroom window in the dark. The two houses are almost 100 feet (33 metres) apart,
and at an acute angle. It should be remembered that scaffolding completely
covered the front of his house. Directly in front of the window at which
McIntyre claimed she had seen Brian in the dark were three scaffold poles and
just to the left was a scaffold ladder. All of these items would have further
obscured her view into his room.
PC Jane Sargeant recounts McIntyre’s statement to Brian:
“…Coming a little bit more recently she says on 5th May 2008 she was
in her bedroom sorting out her stuff and she noticed that the light was on in
your bedroom, she said the light was always on in your bedroom but sometimes
you do turn the light off and you still stand there and she can see a glow of
something, maybe a PC or a TV in the room, and she can see it catching the side
of her (sic) face and that’s how she knows you’re still looking at her. She
said she caught you standing there, you were looking straight at her ... you
were staring straight towards her and she could see that your right hand was
down the front of your trousers and you were, as she put it, there was movement
in the front of your trousers, and that was on 5th May and she says you were
staring right at her…”
This was quite a bit of information to absorb under pressure in an
interview room without a legal representative present, so Brian asked the PC to
repeat what she had just said. She obliged him and added the following:
“…I looked in the direction and he was stood staring straight at me
from his window. His face was evil, it was awful, he really scared me ... He
was just staring straight at me. I could see his hand was down his trousers. It
was his right hand down the front of his trousers and there was movement in the
front of his trousers. I was so shocked and scared I closed the curtain
straight away...”
One might wonder why McIntyre failed to keep her curtains closed ever
since she received the note in October 2007 in which Brian had informed her
that she could be seen.
One also has to wonder why the police took this allegation seriously.
It does not take an Einstein to work out that you could not possibly see a
person’s face from 100 feet away in the dark at a window which was partly
obscured by three scaffold poles and a scaffold ladder.
Furthermore, the windowsill in the front bedrooms in Brian’s house were
above his groin area, so it would have been impossible for anyone (let alone
someone from 100 feet away in the dark)
to have seen him with his hands down his trousers as McIntyre claimed.
But perhaps the most telling feature of these outrageous claims by
McIntyre is that when asking for a paper and pencil so that he could draw a
representation of the windows at 62 Days Lane, Brian drew the diagram with his left hand. He is not right-handed, but
left-handed and he is not ambidextrous. In fact, friends who have worked with
him on his house would testify that his left arm is very much stronger than his
right.
Thus it should have already been very clear to even the most
inexperienced police constable that McIntyre’s statement was nothing short of a
tissue of lies. Yet Detective Constable Saib was also
in the interview room. He did not make mention of this alarming discrepancy,
which is almost tantamount to a witness saying that the murderer was a white
female and the police are interviewing a black male!
Given that McIntyre claimed she had witnessed Brian masturbating at
his bedroom window over a period of nine
months in total, one could conceive that – had this been true – she would
have worked out which hand he used.
A decent and thorough interviewer at this stage would have stopped
that particular line of questioning and taken up the alarming disparities in
Brian’s statement to the police. But PC Sargeant did not. Rather like Cathy Twist at Lambeth, Sargeant ploughed her own furrow, determined not to
listen to reason but to obtain any information with which to charge Brian. She
changed direction.
“The other incident, which was dated 7th May, which was Wednesday, at
about 11:30pm the girl is sat in her bedroom with the light on and her friend
is also in the bedroom with her and the friend was stood at the bedroom door
and they say that they saw you indecently exposing yourself at the window.”
Notice how PC Sargeant – about the same age as McIntyre – refers to
the 22-year-old as ‘a girl’. This was sounding more and more like Lambeth.
“Do you remember what you were doing on 7 May at about 11.30pm?”
“Right at this minute, no I don’t, but I don’t indecently expose
myself up at the window at all. I’ve already said that from time to time I get
out of the shower, I get out of bed or whatever and I am naked and there are no
curtains and there are no houses opposite me at all, so for me that wouldn’t
constitute indecent exposure, and to me anyway indecent exposure suggests a
kind of a willingness to expose yourself as opposed to just naturally going
about your business from the shower to the bedroom or whatever.”
“Well, I’ll just read what she said. The two girls were talking, then
the girl that was stood at the door screamed and she ran out of the room
turning off the other girl’s light. The other girl that we’ve just been talking
about, she turned off her light as she went. The girl with the blonde hair
glanced around as she was shocked by her friend screaming and she noticed that
your light was on and you were stood at the window naked and then she’s turned
away and her other friend came rushing into the bedroom and went over to the
window, and she has made a statement saying that she saw you stood at your
bedroom window completely naked masturbating…”
(Notice at this point that the police officer fails to name the
alleged witnesses. Notice, too, that the transcriber of the interview – Lynn –
spells the word ‘blonde’ correctly.)
“Mm.”
“And the young girl that ran out of the room screaming, that’s what
made her scream, because she saw you naked at the window masturbating looking
over at the blonde girl’s bedroom window.”
(Notice here how Sargeant uses the term ‘young girl’. Elizabeth McIntyre was 21 at the time of this alleged incident.
Yet ‘young girl’ is precisely the same term that Maryn Murray and her friend Anya Hiley used in relation to claims against Brian.
They, too, focused on the word ‘blonde’ – suggesting that Brian has a
proclivity towards young, blonde females.
“Okay, two things; one I think that’s totally bollocks and secondly I
really do need a toilet stop.”
The interview was then suspended at 10:35 for a comfort break and the
tapes were changed.
At 10:37, a second interview commenced. It should be remembered that
Brian had been arrested at 7:30am in his own house just prior to leaving for
work, that he had been unnecessarily handcuffed, that his house had been the
subject of an unlawful search, that he had no legal representation and that he
was facing two police officers. It was a daunting situation for anybody.
The police tactics are to try to wear a suspect down. They claim that
they are there to try to ‘establish’ the truth, but they are not. The police
service is a business. It needs convictions. The mantra exists whereby innocent
people are ‘fitted up’ all the time. There is an endless list of such people:
the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, Barry George and many, many
more innocent people who have been vilified by the press and who have had their
lives completely destroyed by corrupt police officers. Perhaps even more
poignantly, the list includes the 96 dead at the Hillsborough Disaster,
a match which Brian attended. He knew how corrupt the police could be. Most
ordinary, decent citizens exist in a world where they need to believe that the legal system is just and that the police
service is there for them. They ‘turn a blind eye’ to the reality of such
inherent corruption unless, or until, they come face to face with it. This was
exactly the situation in which Brian now found himself.
He knew this entire situation was farcical. He knew that no-one could
see somebody’s face in the dark from 100 feet away. He knew his bedroom window
was obscured by scaffold poles. He knew he was left-handed. He knew he did not
live directly opposite any houses. But most importantly, he knew he was
innocent.
Yet the farce continued. It continued in much the same way that
Brian’s unlawful suspension at Lambeth became an unlawful dismissal, that led
to a farcical Employment Tribunal hearing in which his reports of Murray’s
grooming, racism and bullying went unheeded by Judge Anne Martin, and how he had been forced
to write three times to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in order
to lodge his Appeal. Yet, just less than three weeks after he had visited the
Employment Appeal Tribunal offices on the Victoria Embankment,
he now found himself being arrested as a suspect of masturbation and indecent
exposure. As his father used to say, “Even a blind man could see what’s going
on here, Brian.”
As soon as the second interview commenced, PC Sargeant made numerous references to ‘the young girl’
in a direct echo of Lambeth.
Brian said, “Something doesn’t ring true here. I’m left handed, so I
want to point that out and secondly, as I said, I think this is rubbish.”
By way of response, PC Sargeant asks:
“Well, were you, on 7 May, on that date that maybe you can remember,
stood in your bedroom window at night with the light on, naked and
masturbating?”
“No.”
“Have you ever stood in your bedroom window naked with the light on masturbating?”
“No, because let me explain to you, two things need to be said here.
One of them is I’ve been in that house nineteen years. I have, I would say, a
pretty good reputation in that street with all my neighbours and everything.
Like you’ve pointed out and I’ve pointed out I’m fifty-four years of age […]
I've never had any kind of problem like this, if you call it a problem, before.
So it strikes me as very odd that an incident like this should happen now where
we’ve got a ‘young lady’ putting on, my word, ‘shows’. I’d be very interested
to know how other people would perceive that but in my words that’s a ‘show’.
Yes, so I have a very, very good reputation and it’s a stirring time, because
this is a huge puzzle to me, why this would happen after all these years.
Something doesn’t ring true here at all.”
“I’ve explained to you why they’ve only just come to us now. When for
instance the girl got the letter, after she said she got freaked out by it, she
then the next morning woke up and thought she was going over the top, thought
she was being stupid, so she kept the letter and tried to forget about it and
then a month after she’d opened her curtains then she realised that you were
‘watching her’, as she puts it, and you watched her over this length of time.
She says whenever I glanced up he always seemed to be there watching me. She
said she comes in and out of the house and she sees that you’re watching her
and you’ve even stood on the pavement and watched her go into her house.”
“This is what she says?”
“Yes. And then the incident with the indecent exposure. They did tell
the police and it’s taken this long for us to get the report that came through
and now we’re dealing with it. These girls were scared by your actions.”
Even the staunchest supporter of the police would have to question
what is being said here. PC Sargeant had not addressed Brian’s proof of his being
left-handed. Nor has she addressed that he has told her that “something doesn’t
ring true here.”
She claims that ‘the girl’ (not ‘young woman’ or even ‘woman’, but
‘girl’) was freaked out by the note but retained it. Had she really been
freaked out, it is most likely that she would have reported it to the police at
that point, or thrown the note away in a fit of temper, but she did neither –
she merely kept it. This did not make sense to Brian.
She claims that the police did not act sooner because it had taken
them “this long for us to get the report”. Brian knew this to be completely
untrue. He had mentioned to friends that – ever since his time at Lambeth – he
had felt that he had been under some form of surveillance. He knew that what he had
uncovered at Lambeth and on Faceparty would make him a ‘target’ or a ‘person of interest’
to the police and, as such a person, it was likely that he would, sooner or
later, be ‘fitted up’. He knew that he had been ‘fitted up’ at Lambeth and he
had had this belief confirmed by Alex Passman, an award-winning employment
law specialist who had told Brian that he was ‘being set up’.
Having sent three separate letters to the Employment Appeal Tribunal without
receiving a single reply, and then having been arrested on a charge of indecent
exposure and voyeurism immediately afterwards, it was becoming clearer to Brian
and his friends that this entire episode in his life was following a pattern.
He was being found guilty of things where no witness existed or where no
credible evidence was offered up against him.
Brian had been a keen student of the law for many years. He read
widely on the subject and was particularly keen on police procedure. He was a
fan of Columbo and, whilst fictionalised, it
had more than a nod towards reality. But, in his mid-twenties, he had come
across the story of Frank Serpico, a New York policeman who
tried to expose police corruption. In doing so, he was shot by his own officers
and he ran a gauntlet of hatred in exposing the truth. Brian had been moved by
the cop’s experiences which were, of course, entirely true.
Thus Brian had a good indication that events were occurring in his
life which had all stemmed from the fact that he had been forced to dismiss
Maryn Murray for her illegal activities in the pupil
referral unit of which he was the Head Teacher. He had done the right thing and
his life was being turned inside out because of it.
Back in the interview room at Bexleyheath Police Station,
it was not lost on Brian that there were three people in the room and that one
of them – calling himself DC Saib – had not spoken at all. As a group therapist,
this was noted by Brian. He knew, as most people do, about the age old good-
cop, bad-cop routine, but that wouldn’t work on him. Brian waited, knowing that
Saib would speak at some point. After more than
fifteen minutes of this second interview, Saib asked
Brian to explain about the ‘shows’ that McIntyre put on, and why Brian referred
to them as ‘shows’ as opposed to a woman undressing in her bedroom.
“ What do you call a ‘show’ exactly?”
“I kind of explained that earlier to your colleague here.”
“You did but I just want you to tell me what you call a show again.”
This is an old police trick. Get a suspect to go over it all again and
try to trip him up if any small detail differs from his original account.
Brian, nevertheless, humoured the detective.
“It seemed to me like a deliberate kind of show, a deliberate thing;
it wasn’t somebody just changing.”
“Well, there’s loads of different types of shows, there’s theatre
productions or plays and stuff like that...”
At this point, Brian knew that the police had nothing against him.
When a detective in an alleged investigation has to resort to such inane and
immature questions, it is a reasonable assumption to make that the police are
merely trawling for information or trying to catch a suspect out. What the
police are not doing is
investigating the alleged crime although they are giving the impression that
they are. Brian already knew at this point that he had provided the police with
sufficient information to prove his innocence, but they had ignored it and they
were continuing to interview him under caution.
“Well obviously it’s not a theatre production we’re looking at ...
when I say a show I’m talking...”
“I’ll just re-phrase it, Brian. Tell me exactly what she did when you
saw her.”
Note here the police tactics. DC Saib’s use of the name ‘Brian’ is an attempt to make
the suspect feel that they are ‘mates’ when nothing could be further from the
truth. Secondly, Saib is trying to lead Brian down a particular path: “tell me
exactly what she did when you saw her”. Brian had already explained all this to
PC Sargeant.
“Well on several occasions she will kind of put the light on, get into
the middle of the room, leave this curtain open and these curtains closed. This
is a regular pattern and it would be like kind of dancing, kind of flicking her
hair, it would be like putting her top on, taking her top off, putting another
top on, another top off, it would be like kind of coming across to the window
to see if anybody is looking, going back and doing a bit more and so on. This
could be anything from a quarter of an hour to half an hour, or longer.”
For more than ten minutes, DC Saib tried to
twist the reality round to show that Brian was a middle-aged man who had
fixated on a 20-something year old and who believed that she was putting on
these shows for him.
The reality was that she was putting
on these shows for him, but not for the reasons Saib implied.
Brian Pead is not a stupid man. He knew that it was no coincidence
that four females moved into the house across the road from him at the very
same time that he was investigating Faceparty and what he had uncovered at Lambeth Council.
He knew that the shows were meant for him and he knew that she was
trying to lead him into some form of illicit sexual act.
It was for this reason that he had put the note through the door,
informing Elizabeth McIntyre (he did not, of course, know her name at that
point) that she could be seen. He believed this to be some form of protection
for him – there was a record that he had noticed what was going on. He also
knew, in sending that note, that he would run the risk of corrupt police
officers, barristers and judges using that note against him, but he took the
risk in the belief that the note itself was some form of protection. A course
of action was open to him in which he did nothing but merely observe McIntyre’s
attempts to impersonate the Lorelei, a siren of the Rhine whose
singing lures sailors to shipwreck. But doing nothing would prove worse, he
felt, and thus he sent the note, informing his friend, John Callow, of his
actions. In keeping the note, McIntyre had, in fact, played into Brian’s hands.
Any normal, decent female who had been informed that she could be seen
undressing at the window would have ensured that she stopped the shows and that
she closed the curtains at both windows in her bedroom. But the note had the
opposite effect on McIntyre – she increased
the number of shows and she became more daring, despite claiming to the police
that the note had “freaked me out”.
As the second interview drew to a close, Brian was asked if he had
anything else to add. He paused to think before speaking and then said:
“I’m definitely not guilty of the allegations. I can see how an
outside observer, like either of you, can look at that note there and put two
and two together to make five when putting two and two together needn’t
necessarily be. What is my concern is there’s some kind of dynamic here but I
wouldn’t mind betting she’s been caught out putting on shows and has had to
make a story for her friends. I’m not sure that that’s right and so on, but I
definitely feel aggrieved here, I have to say that.”
“Okay, most people do when they’ve got allegations made against them,
they’re not obviously happy about it.”
“I deny the allegations completely.”
“That will do then. Can I ask you just to sign what you’ve drawn there?
MR PEAD SIGNED AND DATED HIS DRAWING
We’ll conclude the interview at 11.15…”
It is obvious that Brian had given a good account of himself despite
having no legal representation because he was then led away to the cells where
he remained for another hour and a quarter. During this time, the two police
officers would have been conferring with the Crown Prosecutors who would have
been telling the police to “Ask him this…” and “Ask him about…” in order to try
to lay charges. Had they had enough evidence, they would have laid charges
immediately, but they didn’t and so Brian had to endure a third interview. It
lasted, however, for just seven minutes. The transcript makes for interesting
reading and is reproduced in part here. Note the sheer desperation in the
questioning. It is clear to Brian at that time that his version of events had
been completely discounted and that the police had no agenda other than to lay
charges against him.
PC Sargeant explained why they were going to interview
Brian again. “This is the third tape that we’ve had today. This is the second
interview today. The last interview ended at 11.15 today and it is now 12.30.
The reason why I’m interviewing you again, Brian, is we just want to clarify
one point, and I’ll explain what that’s going to be. What I needed to clarify
with you, Brian, is when we were talking earlier about the situation in the
bedroom, where the girls said they saw you masturbating in the bedroom window
on the 7th of May. We were concentrating on what we think is the bedroom
window, where you’ve got the big bay windows, is that right?”
“Yes.”
“It’s now come to light that the window that you were seen to be
masturbating in was actually the window on the left-hand side as you look at
your house. Do you know which one I mean?”
“Yeah, that would be the landing window.”
“You’ve got three windows on the front of your house haven’t you? One
on the left, the landing window and then you’ve got the big bay window. Is that
correct?”
“Yes, it’s not a bay, but I know what you mean. It’s not a double bay
it’s a single bay, hang on I’m getting confused. If you look at my house from
the road my bedroom is over on the right, then there’s a middle window, then
there’s a window to the left.”
“That’s correct yes, and that window at the moment has got clothes in
it. Well, it’s that window that the two witnesses saw you stood at naked and
masturbating on 7th May 2005, the window on the left hand side as you look at
the house.”
“Okay.”
“When the girl with the blonde hair glanced up, she said she glanced
only quickly, realised there was a light on, saw you standing naked and then
looked away, but the two girls that actually were stood and saw said it was
that left hand window.”
“Okay.”
“Were you stood in that window masturbating?”
“Never. Absolutely 100% never.”
“Were you stood in the landing window masturbating?”
“No.”
“Were you stood in any windows in your house masturbating that night?”
“No. I’ve been over this before.”
“Okay. Have you stood naked in your window masturbating at any point
between now and October/September last year, masturbating in any of your
windows?”
“No.”
“So you definitely weren’t stood masturbating in your window on the
night that the girls have alleged?”
“Absolutely not.”
“Were you doing anything in that window?”
“Absolutely not.”
“Have you stood naked in that window or are you ever naked in that
room?”
“That room is absolutely choc-a-bloc full of stuff. It wouldn’t be
possible to stand in front of the window in that room at all.”
“What have you got in that room?”
“Tools, newspaper cuttings, football books, choc-a-bloc full of crap
basically at the moment so it just simply would not be possible.”
“What have you got in front of that window at the moment?”
“Clothes.”
“How are they placed in front of the window?”
“There’s a curtain rail, they’re all on the curtain rail like a
wardrobe.”
“Just an open curtain rail and they’re just hanging off it?”
“Yeah.”
“How near to the window is that?”
“Right in front of the window. You couldn’t see in.”
“Is it right up against the window?”
“Yeah. The curtain pole hangs three inches or four inches away from
the wall. They’re on that pole, so in effect they’re curtains.”
“Is it fixed to the wall then, this curtain pole?”
“Yeah.”
“So it’s not on a free-standing thing, it’s fixed to the wall so they
can’t be moved or anything, but the hangers that the clothes are on there, can
they be moved from the curtain pole?”
“What the shirts and things on hangers that are now on the pole, could
they be moved? Yeah, they can come on and off because in effect that’s my
wardrobe at the minute while I do all the rooms up.”
“So you’re saying that you weren’t stood at that window on the
left-hand side of your house as you look at it?”
“Most certainly.”
“And you’ve never been stood at that window naked?”
“Never.”
“Would you need to change in that room at all?”
“No, because you can’t get in there.”
“Do you not need to get to your clothes that are hanging up?”
“Yeah, but I mean you couldn’t physically stand in there changing
really.”
“But if you can get to the window to get your clothes then you can
stand there can’t you?”
“Just ... there’s boxes and tools and all that so I can reach over and
get something yeah but that’s all.”
“So you have to reach to get your clothing do you?”
“Mm.”
“Okay, so you’re saying at no point have you stood in any of your windows
in the house, whether they’re upstairs or downstairs.”
“Mm.”
“You have not stood there masturbating naked?”
“No.”
“And you’ve not been naked in that room where your clothes are?”
“Never.”
“Have you been naked in any of your other rooms, apart from your
bedroom obviously?”
“No ... well, only in the bathroom obviously.”
“Where’s the bathroom?”
“At the back.”
And the British taxpayer is footing an enormous bill for such
‘investigation’ by the police. Two officers cost the taxpayer money. A Crown
prosecutor and associated staff. Then the typist has to be paid. This futile
and pointless exercise has cost the taxpayer a considerable sum of money.
Readers should remember that any criminal prosecution has to be judged against
the standard that it is in the public interest to prosecute. Brian Pead had
already provided sufficient information to show that the allegations had been
clearly fabricated, but the police had pursued him relentlessly, even in the
face of such a credible account by Brian.
“Right, that’s it. Is there anything you’d like to add or say or ask?”
“Well, yeah, I would actually because this just confirms what I
originally felt, that a lot of this is complete poppy-cock for want of a better
word. That’s all I want to say.”
The interview concluded at 12:37. At this point, the tape recorder was
turned off and PC Sargeant left the interview room, leaving just Brian
and DC Saib.
The detective spoke first. “Hmm, it’s not looking good, Brian. Listen,
mate, do yourself a favour. Accept a caution and I can make all this go away.”
Knowing full well what Saib was
indicating, Brian nevertheless asked, “What do mean, exactly?”
“Well, we have three witnesses…”
“And what about the fourth female student? What has she had to say
about this?”
“She hasn’t made a statement…”
“And why would that be?”
“She just hasn’t.”
“That’s not good enough.”
“Look, listen. If you accept a caution, you won’t have to go to Court.
It won’t get in the paper and no-one need know. You can be out of the station
in minutes.”
“I expect to be released now anyway. I have fully co-operated. The
interviews are finished and I have the right to be released now.”
“But what about the caution? Will you accept a police caution?”
“Fuck off! I’m innocent. I can prove that in Court! I am not going to
accept a caution when I’m innocent, just so you can improve your statistics.”
“But a caution won’t show up on your police record.”
Brian knew this to be a lie. Throughout his teaching career and his
training as a counsellor, Brian had been subjected to Enhanced Disclosures by
the Criminal Records Bureau. Saib had lied.
“I’m not interested.”
Unwilling to play ball, Brian was led back to a cell to await his
fate.
PC Sargeant collected him from the cells an hour or so
later and charged him with exposure. “Get yourself a solicitor,” she said as he
left the station.
It later transpired that between Brian’s second and third interviews,
Elizabeth McIntyre had visited the police station and changed her
original statement. She had initially claimed that she had seen Brian
masturbating in his bedroom window with the light off, then she provided a
statement to say that he had been in the bedroom to the far left (as seen from
the street) with the light on.
Even the police themselves had conceded that that bedroom window was
covered with Brian’s clothes.
At no point had the police sent a forensics team round to Brian’s
house to measure the height of the windowsills or the ceilings. They did not
take a measurement of his height. They had not objectively taken evidence from
both parties – they had merely believed the statements of three out of four
students.
The police and Crown Prosecution Service use several lawbooks to refer
to when charging people with alleged offences. Archbold is one of the more famous of such books. This
is what Archbold says about Exposure:
“…(1) Exposure
(a) Statute
Sexual Offences Act 2003, s.66
Exposure: 66(1) – A person commits an offence if
(a)
he intentionally exposes his genitals; and
(b)
he intends that someone will see them and be
caused alarm or distress.
(b) Indictment
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Exposure, contrary to section 66(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Particulars of Offence
AB, on the ____ day of ____, 20__ intentionally exposed his genitals,
intending that someone would see them and be caused alarm or distress…”
Archbold is clear on the two important steps here: firstly,
the act itself (in legal terms the actus
reus). A person must perform the act of exposing his genitals. Secondly he
must have the intent (in legal terms, the mens
rea) to intentionally cause the onlooker alarm or distress.
It is difficult to conceive that the Crown truly believed that Brian
Pead, even if he had been masturbating at his bedroom window, was doing so with
malicious intent.
The concurrence principle is also relevant here: this means that the actus reus and the mens rea must coincide
in time. According to Simester, Spencer, Sullivan and Virgo in Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law: Theory
and Doctrine, Hart Publishing, 2010, this principle has an ancient
pedigree. As long ago as 1798, Lord Kenyon described it as:
“…a principle of
natural justice, and of our law, that actus
non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (the act is not culpable unless the mind is
guilty). The intent and the act must both concur to constitute the crime…”
Since criminal prosecutions are subject to certain tests before they
are brought, it is difficult to imagine why this case ever came to court on its
merits alone. The Crown Prosecution’s own website provides the
following information about how decisions are made in respect of which cases to
prosecute. We reproduce the text below:
“…The principles we follow:
The Code for Crown Prosecutors sets out the
basic principles to be followed by Crown Prosecutors when they make case
decisions. The decision on whether or not to charge a case against a suspect is
based on two tests outlined in the Code.
The evidential test
This is the first stage in the
decision to prosecute. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough
evidence to provide a ‘realistic prospect of conviction’ against each defendant
on each charge. They must consider whether the evidence can be used and is
reliable. They must also consider what the defence case may be and how that is
likely to affect the prosecution case. A ‘realistic prospect of conviction’ is
an objective test. It means that a jury or a bench of magistrates, properly
directed in accordance with the law, will be more likely than not to convict
the defendant of the charge alleged. (This is a separate test from the one that
criminal courts themselves must apply. A jury or magistrates’ court should only
convict if it is sure of a defendant’s guilt.) If the case does not pass the
evidential test, it must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it
may be.
The public interest test
If the case does pass the evidential test, Crown Prosecutors must then decide whether
a prosecution is needed in the public interest. They must balance factors
for and against prosecution carefully
and fairly. Some factors may increase the need to prosecute but others may
suggest that another course of action would be better. A prosecution will
usually take place however, unless there are public interest factors tending
against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. The CPS will only start or continue a prosecution if a
case has passed both tests.
The emphases are ours. Based
on these supposedly objective tests, there was no case. The three female
‘victims’ had all made statements which differed from each other significantly.
The police – on their own later admission – had not investigated the case. No-one
would have thought that Brian deliberately intended to cause the females alarm
or distress. And the act itself was not possible because in the window in
question, the windowsills were above Brian’s groin area and the ceiling was too
low for him to stand on a chair or anything. Brian is around 6ft 1in tall and
the ceiling height was measured by John Callow (a former surveyor for British Telecom) to be
6ft 7in, giving a clearance of only 6 inches. It would have been physically
impossible for Brian to have stood on a chair or anything else had he wished to
display his genitals because there was insufficient headroom. Furthermore,
between the bottom of the visible glass area of the window and the windowsill
was a further gap of 7 inches, which meant that only a person of approximately
5ft tall could have displayed his genitals in that window.
But perhaps the most significant point was that Brian had two
witnesses of his own – John Callow, a counselling friend, and
Maya Walker, his colleague and lover. He
had not mentioned this to the police because (a) they had never asked whether
he had any witnesses (a serious error in their ‘investigation’) and (b) he gave
the police enough rope to hang themselves, as his father had taught him years
before.
When he put the note through the front door of 62 Days Lane, he had
told his friend, John Callow, about it, about the strange
pattern with the curtains and what he had seen.
But Sunday 18 May 2008
was to prove a pivotal point in this scenario.
The police had claimed that Brian had been masturbating at his bedroom
window from October through to 18 May 2008.
Before discussing that significant Sunday, let us return to the
chronology of Brian’s life in this month.
7 May 2008 – McIntyre claims Brian had been masturbating at a
bedroom window.
7 May 2008 – Brian is in agony from gout and goes to bed early to take the weight off
his feet.
8 May 2008 – Brian struggles in to work at Off Centre and during his
lunch hour he types out a letter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
8 May 2008 – On his way home from work, Brian attends Queen Mary’s
Hospital in Sidcup and is diagnosed with gout for the first time in his life (this hospital
visit is, of course, on his medical records).
8 May 2008 – On his way home from the hospital, Brian calls in at Geoffrey
Bacon’s house in Chislehurst, uses
the internet and is messaged by the ‘girl’ on Faceparty. He tells ‘her’ “You are a
fake!”
13 May 2008 – Brian takes the letter to the EAT.
18 May 2008 – Maya Walker visits Brian in Sidcup. Walker is a witness to
Elizabeth McIntyre’s ‘shows’.
20 May 2008 – Brian arrested.
Why had the police taken a full two
weeks from 7 May until 20 May to arrest Brian for alleged indecent
exposure? Would he have even been arrested at all had he not taken the letter
to the EAT? Why did the fourth female student in the house at 62 Days Lane not
make a statement? Why did the police not measure Brian’s house? Why did they
not seek his permission to obtain his medical records? Why did the police not
interview Maya Walker, his known lover? Why did the
police not interview John Callow? Why did the police not
interview Brian’s neighbours, particularly Glen Meeking and Ellen Stanley?
The authors believe that the police failed to conduct a proper investigation
because had they done so, they could not possibly have brought any charges
against Brian. What ‘evidence’ they did have was the witness statements of
three females in their early-20s, and evidence exists which shows that they may
have been operating a brothel (as Glen Meeking suggested in his witness statement) or
even cultivating drugs (as Ellen Stanley suggested in her statement.) Ellen
Stanley – the Miss Marple of that area of Days Lane - had also noticed
the odd pattern with the curtains at number 62.
Clearly the police had not conducted a thorough investigation. This
was an exact mirror of Brian’s unlawful dismissal from Lambeth Council.
Let us now examine the statement made by Maya Walker about Sunday 18 May 2008. This is of great
significance. For this reason, it is reproduced in its entirety:
“…Statement
Written on: 10.06.2008 by: Maya Walker
07.05.2008
I remember this day especially, as we had a ‘Dirty Hands day’ at work.
This meant that we closed our counselling centre to clients on that day, so we
could spend the day clearing the clutter that we gathered over the years. I
remember Brian limping on that day. When I asked him what had happened he told
me that he was not sure, but that he probably had broken his toe. He said that
he could not remember when he would have done it, but that was the only way he
was able to make sense of his pain. I could see that he was in great pain when
he left work that day and that he was not able to stand for long.
When he came to work the next day, he appeared in even greater agony.
It did not surprise me that he came to work regardless of his pain, as I was
aware that commitment to work and his clients is one of his qualities. He said
that he was going to the hospital to be checked in the evening after work. It
later transpired that he was told that he had gout.
18.05.2008
In the evening Brian and I were lying on the bed watching TV. Our back
and heads were leaning on the headboard opposite the door. When sitting in the
middle of the bed, leaning on the headboard, without any effort as you turn
your head slightly to the left, you can see through the window of the house
further down the road on the opposite side. I would usually be either in the
middle or on the left side of the bed and could not be seen by others because
of the blue scaffolder’s sign. When sitting on the left hand side of the bed,
you are unable to see the windows well from that angle, as the scaffolding is in
the way. When we were in half-sitting position Brian asked me what I think
about what I can see through the window of that house. I moved slightly towards
the middle of the bed and turned my head slightly to the left and looked
through the window. I saw a woman wearing a very revealing vest, walking
through the room. I could clearly observe that the top she was wearing was very
revealing and exposing to some extent her bigger breasts. I was only able to
see her some of the time when she is in a particular part of the room, as you
see through the window at an angle. I saw her stop in that particular part of
the room, where she could be clearly seen. She turned away from the window for
a number of seconds, maybe 10 or 20. She then turned around and started walking
to another part of the room. I saw her glance towards Brian's house and saw her
lock her look. I said to Brian that I feel that she is aware of being able to
be seen. I saw the same happen on a few occasions, as she walked to the part of
the room where she was able to be seen (not a large area, as the houses are not
standing exactly opposite from each other), stood there for a while and as she
would turn to walk to another part of the room. She would always look in to our
direction. The impression I was left with, was that she was deliberately
wanting to show herself, which is what I said to Brian. Brian’s response was
something like: “That’s what I thought. It’s helpful for me to hear this from
you. It’s not something I have imagined then?” He then told me that he has been
seeing her doing this for months and that his impression is also that she seems
to want to be observed, as she would have at least one of her curtains always
open in the evenings and he would be able to see her getting undressed. We both
talked about the possibility that she might the kind of person that we would
call an ‘exhibitionist’. A person that likes to display herself. This comment
or observation was not unusual for us, as we often make observations about
people, checking out our instincts or views about them with the hope of
broadening our understanding of human nature. We both find this way of
interacting helpful for our development as counsellors and our self-development
as human beings.
Being under no illusion that some men would find this kind of display
fascinating, a turn on and perhaps even inviting, I asked Brian how he’s
finding it and whether he would want to get involved with her in some way, if she
was up for it? Brian said that months ago, he did give her a note inviting her
to contact him, or actually stop the shows by bringing it to her attention in a
humorous way. (I don’t remember exact contents of the note.) She never
contacted him. He also said that he still notices her displays as they are
almost in his face (meaning that he does not need to make much effort to
notice) and though he is interested in what they represent to her, he now feels
impartial about them.
24.05.2008
I came to see Brian in the late afternoon with intention to go to the
cinema. Brian told me that he now felt very apprehensive leaving the house in
case she may think that he is there because of her. He told me that earlier
that day, he stepped out of the house and observed that the woman came out of
the house. Even though she came out just after he stepped out, he immediately
got worried that she may think that he came out, because she was there. He told
me that he observed that she was wearing very high cut hot pants and a tight
fitting top. (I have since seen her myself on a cloudy and rainy day wearing
hot pants). He asked what I as a woman thought about this. I knew that Brian
was arrested and why and the impression I got was that the woman claimed to be
distressed by Brian’s alleged masturbating at the window and his so-called
voyeurism. Having worked with a number of women who were in one way or another
left distressed because of different kind of encounters with men I could not
make sense of this. The women I have in mind are the ones that had a particular
experience with a man, whereby they were subjected to something they did not
want to happen to them. Anything from a man openly ‘hitting on them’ or to a
greater extreme where they may have been indecently assaulted or even raped.
Those women’s reaction to the distress they would be left with, would be to
never want to face a man again or if that choice was not there, they would
often change the way they would dress, so not to appear in any way provocative.
They would lose the freedom to dress anyway they felt comfortable with before
the incident. Knowing this, I was surprised to hear that the woman would come
out in hot pants, knowing that she would be potentially seen by a man who
allegedly made her feel distressed by allegedly masturbating in his own house.
I was also thinking about her displays in the window after the alleged
masturbation happened. Again this behaviour would not marry up my understanding
of the behaviour of a woman in distress.
Brian and I have been very honest with each other from the onset even
with telling each other the things that would be a challenge to share with
someone else. From how I got to know Brian sexually, I feel that displaying
himself while masturbating in his neighbourhood would not be a turn on for him.
The way he is perceived matters to him greatly and being seen as a potential
‘pervert’ by masturbating by the window would potentially tarnish his
reputation of nearly 20 years living in that house, as he could be seen by
other people, e.g. vicar across the road, or even by people leaving the church
hall at night. The church hall opposite Brian’s house is used for social
functions on a regular bases (sic) and people leave it up to midnight on
occasions.
Even more importantly, I don’t have any doubts that Brian would not
cause any intentional distress to anyone, as he is particularly sensitive to
people and shows a lot of care and consideration to people around him and it is
of great importance to him how people view him…”
This statement from Maya Walker shows Brian’s honesty and transparency about
his intentions and motives and his behaviour. He always tries to ensure that at
least one other person is aware of whatever he does, so that he always has
someone to rely on and ‘watch his back’.
Maya Walker clearly shows that Elizabeth McIntyre was putting on shows exactly as Brian had told
the police during his lengthy interviews.
Ms Walker also confirmed that Brian was in great pain on the 7 and 8 May,
and that he had visited the hospital.
Ms Walker also confirmed that – in her opinion as his lover – Brian
would never want to cause distress to anyone. He is a very spiritual human
being and is “…particularly sensitive to people and shows a lot of care and
consideration to people around him…”
Causing distress to female students (or others) is not in his
psychological or emotional make-up.
If Brian had been masturbating
at his bedroom window between October 2007 and May 2008, why had it taken
McIntyre eight months to report such behaviour, particularly if it caused her
such trauma?
The authors put forward the view that, because of his discoveries of
child abuse, racism and bullying within Lambeth Council, together with his
investigations into Faceparty, Brian was under police
observation. The authors also believe that his house was bugged, and that the
police then became aware of the conversation between Brian and Maya Walker of 18 May 2008. The police were then forced to
move fast and arrest Brian on obvious trumped-up charges. They needed him ‘in
the system’ to enable them to monitor him even more closely and to disrupt his
research and investigations.
The authors also believe that by visiting the Employment Appeal
Tribunal, Brian had to be silenced, his
attention turned away from an Appeal and his energies focused on fighting
spurious criminal allegations. This pattern of behaviour by the police has been
noticed by the authors of this book over some six years. Each time Brian
attempts to bring his findings to the attention of the authorities, the very
same authorities – which are there to protect his rights – actually abuse their
powers, abuse Brian’s human rights and try to discredit him in the eyes of
others.
Elizabeth McIntyre, Natalie Ryan and Katie Prouse had made spurious allegations against Brian
Pead – Christine Holloway, the fourth tenant at 62 Days
Lane, Sidcup had not.
But if Brian thought that his problems couldn’t get any worse, he was
wrong – terribly wrong.
Within the space of less than two weeks, they were to suddenly
multiply dramatically. His problems multiplied in direct correlation with his
exposure of police corruption.
No comments:
Post a Comment